Textus Receptus: Translations of TR: KJV, NKJV, MEV, Others??? 

The KJ3 - Literal Translation of the Bible, Jay P. Green Sr. Translator is a great read.

Thank you for this video. I have been having a hard time locating an English translation from majority text. I too prefer KJV though I own several translations. I have been trying to dig in and learn more about root text. I just want to say that I very much appreciate your demeanor, your respect for others, and your opinions. I have searched your channel for this very video and was so glad to see it in my feed today. Keep doing God's will brother!

Thank you,Stephen🌹🌹🌹🌹

There is a Geneva 1599 editition both old and new that is quite portable. They did update the font so it is quite readable.

Great video. What are your thoughts on Jay P. Green’s KJ3 and his Interlinear?

Are you familiar with the ALT (Analytical - Literal Translation of the New Test.), done by Gary Zeolla (Darkness to Light website)? It is like Young’s, except it is based on the RP Majority text). Every single word is translated (like Young’s), it distinguishes between the singular and plural ‘you’, etc. it is available in both print and on Kindle.

TR translations ylt (young's) and lsv (literal standard version) are also useful. There is also a revised young's literal translation rylt in the public domain.

You are a breath of fresh air, and I have to say your children are very blessed to have their father teach them the language of the King James Bible. It’s interesting your honest reviews and draw backs on some modern bibles. You have done your homework like the Bible says in the Word of God in my good old King James Bible 1st John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” Not only is the trinity not in the modern bibles but also not in the Jehovah false Witness bible that was exposed bigtime in a video I would love for your followers and yourself to watch, , that I wish I would have had many years ago that is very well done by a Baptist pastor born in Lebanon and today, by the grace of God, pastors the Hope Baptist Church of Montreal in Canada so I wanted to share this video with as many as I can before I take my last breath and go to be with not a Jehovah Witness Jesus, but the real Jesus who died for me and everyone in this world. I say that because my 75-year-old heart has stopped not once but twice because of a huge blood clot in my lung. Once in our local emergency room and the second time was thousands of feet in the air in a Mayo Clinic life flight helicopter headed for Rochester MN. The previous video that I am referring to is called “KJV VS Other Versions & why you’re reading a Jehovah Witness bible by Counsel and Might Dr. George Antonios” The first few minutes of this pastor’s video refers to some bible translators behind some modern Bibles. One of these was referring to the NIV translator who was a lesbian on the NIV bible translation committee who goes by the name of Virginia Mollenkott , which several years ago, I myself emailed her and asked her, if this was true, and she emailed me back where she admitted in her own words she has been a lesbian all her life and was a stylist consultant on the NIV Bible translation committee, that I have a copy of that is in the last chapter of a book I feel God inspired me to write that took me ten years to complete called “Good Ole Rotten Apples” that to God be the Glory has been given a 4 star rating on Amazon. The rest of this pastor’s video is comparing just a few of way too many key doctrinal words that have been tampered with or removed completely in some modern versions compared to the Jehovah false Witness Bible which does the same thing. I also know that for a fact because after my book came out on in 2014 an X -Jehovah Witness had read the book and then sent me their Jehovah Witness Bible NWT New World Translation where I did a comparison and seen for myself is 90 percent the same as some modern versions. That’s a problem because it broke my heart that most well meaning youtubers that read or quote from modern bibles are not testing every spirit like this Baptist pastor did and then went one step further and put this very important very needed video on you tube.

I have a list somewhere of about 3 dozen TR based NTs a kept up on many years ago. Some are electronic versions only. Now I keep a list of Byzantine based texts.

Interesting video. I have a few comments. First, in regard to the KJV, I would place myself currently in the KJV Preferred camp, but with a recognition that I think there's some evidence that God's hand rests upon the KJV in a way that it does not rest upon other translations. I really wish there was more of a community for people such as myself, which is interested in the KJV but lacks the insane excesses of most of the KJVO people (just today I saw a pastor imply that you cannot even be saved unless preached to from the KJV because all other Bibles are "corruptible seed" and one cannot be born again from corruptible seed). In regard to other translations, I do like the MEV and think it tends to read a bit more smoothly than the KJV. It has its place and I wouldn't mind seeing it get more attention. Unfortunately, from what I can tell, it seems that even its publisher has given up on it. I'm glad to see you give some attention to the WEB. As you say, that's a very interesting project with a noble goal (to produce a fully copyright-free translation in modern English), and I can really appreciate the time and effort that went into it with no expectation of financial gain. It would be interesting to see a quality study Bible produced using the WEB text. Just wandering around online, I have noticed that there IS a small contingent of people who are using it and quoting from it, and I even saw a citation from the WEB in an academic text on hermeneutics recently.

What are your thoughts on the MEV? NKJV has the best textual notes. I do you think it is better than the NET translation notes?

The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible is another excellent choice.

Well done! I am a Byzantine Priority textform/Majority Text guy, but as you pointed out, the differences between the TR and the Byzantine texts are not that great. I carry the NKJV, but in my study I refer as much as I'm able to the original languages. And next to the NKJV, the TR translation I consult most often is Young's.

LOVE your videos. FYI: it’s Pronounced REE-CEP (not Sip)-TUSS

I find that KJV and MEV (every modern bibles) has different verse in Genesis 27:39. What is right??

After coming to the understanding, that in 1604, King James' only gripe with the very popular of that day GENEVA BIBLE (1599) was the study notes themselves and not the texts, because he believed in the "divine right of kings;" I have developed a deeply-held reverence for my GENEVA BIBLE. The King's decree was to produce a bible without any study notes. And they did! I simply, for the most part, ignore those highly dated study notes in the GENEVA BIBLE. At least some of them. Its a wonderful bible!

I was hopeful that the MEV would be a viable alternative to the KJV. It's a good translation that I use frequently but it doesn't rise to the level of replacing the NKJV as the go to replacement of the KJV.

Thanks for your post. I read from the NKJV version daily.

Have you always read the KJV or did you start with a different bible and then decide to move? I've read the ESV for at least 15 years now and before that it was the NIV. None of my family or church would have read the KJV. I've started reading it a bit as I've studied the whole textual criticism debate, but find myself more drawn to the NKJV alongside by ESV (I've been reading it so long, it's hard to just put it aside)

NOTE: The October Testament: The New Testament of the New Matthew Bible This is William Tyndale’s New Testament as it was published in the 1537 Matthew Bible, complete with original commentaries by Tyndale and John Rogers, and all gently updated by Ruth Magnusson Davis. It also includes Tyndale’s prologue to Romans, which he took from Martin Luther.... Baruch House Publishing

Boom!

The Scriptures( a Messianic translation), is based on the textus receptus

👍👍👍

nice video work :) good overview of TR based versions with some interesting details... re. the NKJV departing from the KJV TR, this seems to be due to the NKJV translators sometimes following Stephanus 1550 instead of the Scrivener/TBS TR text,... and it turns out, interestingly enough, ST1550 slightly more often agrees with the Majority text than the TBS TR agrees with the Majority text... when they started the translation work for the NKJV NT, it should have been after or around 1976 when the TBS TR edition was released, but at any rate it was readily available 1979 when the NKJV NT was first released, so they could compare their text with the 1976 TBS TR in order to make sure it agrees with the text underlying the KJV... but there's no excuse for departing from the Scrivener TR because that has been available since 1881, although it may have been lesser awareness of the TR differences back in the 1970s... that may have been part of the reason why we find that sometimes the NKJV translators follow the ST1550/Maj.txt, but only in minor variant readings of certain words and forms, not in differences of whole verses, large parts of verses, sentences, etc., ... back then it was either the TR, the Majority text and the Critical text, not so much about minor variants between the TRs... but they could have corrected the NKJV since then to make sure it's wholly based on the KJV TR text... but as far as i am aware, they have not done so yet... another question is: who should do it? there must be a team of proof readers and scholars engaged to do it or at least a couple of persons to do the work, and it's simply too small a matter to be cared about, it seems...

1599 Gevena Bible. The Holy Scriptures containes in Old and New Testaments. Tolle Lege Press.

I would say UNBELIEVRS are not interested in the Textus Receptus, Nick Sayers is going live tomorrow about the TR, I think you guys could have a respectfull discussion about what you agree/disagree. I think it can be edifying for the body christ to understand why you don't believe some of the readings in the KJB and NS also can give you his scholarly reasons for why the KJB reading is Correct.

wow. no esv? no nasb? no septuigant?

It takes time for a preacher to explain the many archaic words in the kjv. If a preacher is willing to use evangelical TR translations like nkjv or mev, can save a lot of time during preaching. If a preacher is willing to accept the evidence supporting the expert consensus about the critical text, will be able to use better modern translations. Using a literal translation will waste some time explaining hebrew idioms and greek idioms. A preacher can save some time by using thought for thought translations like nlt, gnt, voice, bec no longer need to explain hebrew idioms and greek idioms.

I have the 1537 Matthew’s Bible by Tyndale/Coverdale and the only thing that makes it difficult to read IMHO is the font. With the Matthew’s Bible and the Geneva Bible you get used to the difference in spellings rather quickly. I think the fact that the “s” in older English followed the same rules as the Greek sigma(all s’s that aren’t at the end or capitalized look similar to an “f”) is a little more difficult for some people to train their minds to read in a flow though. I really like both of those Bible’s and I appreciated the way they translated Ekklesia most of all as it helps people associate themselves rather than the building as the Ekklesia. When you know the origin of the word Church(today spelled Circe) as a false goddess who was known to use witchcraft to turn men into beasts you can definitely see why Tyndale used it in two places in Acts to describe pagan temples. That’s why the Geneva Bible did the same thing as Tyndale in Acts 19:37 whereas the other use was a verse that didn’t have the Greek word Ekklesia and was Tyndale adding a word to the English to identify a porch as being located at a pagan temple. The Geneva Bible is definitely easier to read as the font is much simpler to read. Overall I really appreciate these Bibles and you can see Tyndale’s translation well reflected in both the Geneva and KJV Bibles with both maintaining about 85-90% of what Tyndale wrote 😁👍🏼

Thank you for this video. While the KJV can, and has been, updated in language, the updated editions still tend to retain the errors and infelicities of the KJV translation itself. I think that it is better to use the World English Bible as the base for an updated Bible. It is in the public domain, and it carries a very generous licence for one’s own adaptation and changes. A church or group could easily produce an agreed text for common use. With the fragmentation of any notion of a common version, it seems to me to be better for individuals, churches and groups to proceed to an edition that’s going to meet their needs.

Jubilee Bible is based on the reformation era TRs used for the spanish translation and the reformation era TRs used for the kjv.

Geneva Bible is calvinistic and reformed bent in its interpretations, but nevertheless, it's faithful to the TR. I prefer the KJV.

There is nothing wrong with the KJV at all. The only problem is training at every level. Churches, Parents, Seminaries, schools. Once you learn to read, the KJV comes alive.

I prefer the NKJV the best. Where it may not sound as beautiful, it is more easier to read and more accurate in my opinion to correct KJV mistakes. Its in American English.

The Epiothpia Bible is the oldest Bible in the world it is from Africa all others Bibles were created from that you can look it up online

The KJV after all these years is all in all probably what you want to go with, because it tries to stay loyal to the original, and the language is beautiful as everyone agrees, everyone knows the drawbacks I wont list them here, the NIV especially the older or first two are best. Stay away from any bible that uses gender neutral language it is NOT the word of God.

The new versions have a mindset that is antikjv and anti tradition. Newer is better. Highly ironic considering TR is modern invention whereas alexandrian strand is much older......

All true Christians who do the Work Of the Lord are led or with other words Enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, “Abba, Father.” And so were the Bible Translators of the KJV and the Geneva Bible. The Jesuits, in the early nineteenth century hit upon the idea of promoting to Protestants a mediaeval forgery that appeared to be an ancient copy of the Scriptures in their library (Codex Vaticanus). This was full of errors and thus little regarded, but differed so much from the Textus Receptus upon which Protestant Bibles were based that, if accepted by Protestants as authoritative, it would throw confidence in the Scriptures (outside Rome’s direct control) into confusion. To this enterprise the famous German Lutheran scholar and specialist in ancient uncial manuscripts, Constantine Tischendorf, was enlisted, as was also the brilliant Greek calligrapher, and dealer in manuscripts, Constantine Simonides. Tischendorf was invited for an audience with the Pope and became a tool of the Jesuits, eventually finding an uncial codex at St Catherine’s monastery in Sinai, which he would identify as a fourth century manuscript with similarities to Codex Vaticanus. Yet in reality Tischendorf knew that Codex Sinaiticus had recently been produced by Simonides in the old style of uncial writing. 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, ( Without the Roman Catholic influences of the New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration). Nevertheless, the King James Bible turned out to be an excellent and accurate translation, and it became the most printed book in the history of the world, and the only book with one billion copies in print. In fact, for over 250 years. until the appearance of the English Revised Version of 1881-1885...the King James Version reigned without much of a rival. Our Lord gave us an perfect translation with the Geneva Bible and KJV. If God gave it us, we don’t need this confusion of “Modern translations” based on a fraudulent manuscript. In 1973, the New International Version (N.I.V.) was produced, which was offered as a “dynamic equivalent” translation into modern English. The N.I.V. was designed not for “word-for-word” accuracy, This is where the confusion started. With the many versions of the Bible it has lost credibility. Special it is mocked by unbelievers. James White is to blame for a large portion of it. After Our Lord gave us the Translation of the Bible in the common linguist there was no need for an other translation. However The NKJV is a revision, and is well readable English. They Only changed words and Grammar no longer in use. Sinaiticus is one of the two main manuscripts which forms the basis of all modern versions of the Bible, the other main manuscript being Vaticanus. This means that the modern versions are misleading and ill inspired, and is used by every modern translation as one of their "oldest and best" manuscripts. NOW IT IS NO LONGER OLD AND BEST, BUT A FORGERY FROM THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. The evidence is irrefutable. If you use a modern version, then you are relying on this nineteenth century counterfeit as your Bible. Disputed verses are for example 9 to 20 in Mark 16 The Last Twelve Verses of Mark's Gospel- James White and other Theologians claim that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are not integral part of his Gospel. They are omitted by [A] not by the Syriac Appendix 94. V. Ii. www.therain.org/appendixes/app168.html JAMES WHITE AND OTHERS who would not preach from Mark 16: 9 - 20 have their hair on fire, because his favorite occult bible version ‘Sinaiticus’ is being revealed as a modern day hoax. The older translations of the Bible are The Geneva Bible and the KJV. The differences between the Geneva Bible and the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is that The King James Version of the Bible eliminated the marginal notes. It has BEEN, A POPULAR FEATURE FOR THOSE WHO USED THEM AS A STUDY GUIDE 1611 King James Version of the Bible was compiled from previous English translations and the Geneva Bible. They also used the Erasmus's translation, I’m glad I can read the Dutch Bible the first translation of the Bible from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Commissioned by The Protestant Dutch Republic and first published in 1637 with the Marginal notes from the translators; this because some words are not so easy to translate and need to be explained. The Dutch linguist has more words than English.

What's important to know is what is the TR wrong about in it's translation -- THAT's what makes the other manuscript families far more important at this time of the translation process. The KJV is valuable the way a mint condition Model T Ford is, but I wouldn't depend on it as a regular mode of transport. The Bible made a historical impact, not because it was a KJV, but because it's the BIBLE! So, that's not a strong argument. If I want flowery language, go to Shakespeare, but if you want the Truth, go to as many translations as is required to get to the Truth. The KJV is the best version if you want to push many of the pagan influences that corrupted the translation, like Eternal Conscious Torment.

Many have revised the kjv to fix the archaic english of the kjv (some have minor translation corrections): * webster bible. * king james II bible (after learning hebrew and greek, the mkjv was done). jay p green sr. * kj3 literal translation by jay p green sr. * 21st century king james version. kj21. * american king james version. akjv. Michael Peter (Stone) Engelbrite. * king james clarified. kjc. rev bill mcginnis. * KJVer (easy read) sword bible. * revised king james new testament. rkjnt. used modern translations to update the kjv. brad haugaard. * kj2000 (kjv2000). robert a couric. * hse. Holy Scriptures in English. Rabon Vincent Jr. seventh day adventist. * revised kjv. rkjv. fred miller. * ckjv. comfort-able kjv. ray comfort. evidence bible. * avu authorized version update. mennonite anabaptist. biblical viewpoints publications. Leland M Haines. * av7 new authorized version. joe g lowder (josef g lowder). * Real old testament and Real new testament. Hadarel Corporation * MCT mickelson clarified translation. * updated kjv. ukjv. michael john nisbett (seventh day adventist). * universal kjv. ukjv. william petri (universalist). beacon of grace ministries. * VW edition. vw. voice in the wilderness bible. paul becker. Update using NKJV, LITV. * Holy Bible Lighthouse Version. David Plaisted. * simplified new testament. james ross, david ross. dimensional ministries. * king james version 2016. kjv 2016. nick sayers. * easy to read new testament. christopher vaughan. * revised common version. rcv. update of webster bible. * simplified kjv. barbour. 2022.

The NKJV didnt come the TR. It's an Alexandrian Translation.

Why the obsession with poor quality 12th century Greek manuscripts? I just don’t get it.

The new king james is not from the text recieved you have believed a lie

You lost me at the NKJV - Apparently you haven't yet seen the apostasy!

The KJV is a true TR text. All the others, including NKJV, MEV, ESV, and others, are tainted by spurious texts. The KJV is also THE HOLY BIBLE for all English speaking people.

Kjv is the only 100 percent version from the TR. All modern versions are mostly catholic based horse manure